Friedman v. City of Highland Park
136 S. Ct. 447
SCOTUS2015Background
- Highland Park, IL ordinance banned manufacture, sale, transfer, acquisition, or possession of many semiautomatic "assault weapons" and "Large Capacity Magazines" (devices accepting >10 rounds), with criminal penalties and a 60-day compliance or surrender period.
- Petitioners: a resident seeking to keep now-prohibited firearms for home defense and a firearms-advocacy organization sued, alleging a Second Amendment violation; District Court granted summary judgment to the City.
- A divided Seventh Circuit panel affirmed, adopting a test that asks whether banned weapons were common at the Founding or related to militia efficiency and whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense.
- The Seventh Circuit acknowledged defensive utility of the banned semiautomatics but upheld the ban, noting possible public-safety and subjective safety benefits.
- Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Scalia) dissented from denial of certiorari, arguing the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning conflicts with Heller and McDonald and would nullify core Second Amendment protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ban violates Second Amendment right to keep arms commonly used for lawful purposes | Ordinance prohibits commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and magazines used for self-defense; such items are protected under Heller/McDonald | City argues regulation is permissible because banned arms are subject to local control to promote public safety and alternatives remain for defense | Certiorari denied by Court; Justice Thomas would grant review, finding Seventh Circuit at odds with Heller/McDonald |
| Proper test for evaluating firearm bans (historical-common-use vs. interest-balancing) | Heller/McDonald require focus on whether arms are in common lawful use, not freestanding interest‑balancing | City/Seventh Circuit used a test considering historical commonality, militia relation, and adequacy of alternatives | Seventh Circuit applied multi-factor test; Thomas criticizes that it departs from Heller’s common‑use rule and forbids interest‑balancing |
| Role of militia-focused inquiry in Second Amendment scope | Petitioner: right is individual and defined by what private citizens commonly possess, not militia needs | City: regulation permissible if weapon not tied to militia or if states can restrict so-called military-grade arms | Thomas: Seventh Circuit wrongly prioritized militia/state control contrary to Heller’s individual‑rights holding |
| Whether availability of alternative weapons saves a ban | Petitioner: Heller rejects saving a ban by pointing to other available arms; protecting commonly used arms is dispositive | City: homeowners can use pistols/long guns as substitutes, so adequate means of defense remain | Seventh Circuit relied on substitute availability; Thomas says Heller focuses on common use, making substitutes irrelevant |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, notably home self‑defense; common‑use arms are protected)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the States; reaffirmed Heller’s individual‑right and common‑use principles)